Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Genes Project


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. (non-admin closure)  TheSpecialUser TSU 01:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Global Genes Project

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The content in this article does not demonstrate that the article's subject meets notability criteria. Also there are no reliable sources to verify any of the content in the article. Much of this article is an advertisement for trademarked products and projects. There is a promise in the talk page to develop this article but I did a Google search and do not think that this article can be developed sufficiently to meet Wikipedia inclusion standards.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   19:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Google news shows about 40 articles covering the Global Genes Project. That should be enough to write a properly sourced Wikipedia article. Zeromus1 (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the mentions in Google news; could you point to some among those 40 articles which you think are good for sourcing a Wikipedia article?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   01:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking some of these might qualify. Some of the non-English sources also might, but I can't read them. Are press releases not acceptable as sources even if they're published by a respectable news organization? Zeromus1 (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Most of the Google News links are press releases or otherwise not reliably sourced. But I added a couple of references to the article from relatively minor Reliable Source publications. There is also material at Google News in several other languages that I did not evaluate. I'd say this charity is borderline, but seems to be lacking the substantial coverage that would make it a keeper. --MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JmaJeremy  ✆  ✎  02:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.